Very good point from a libetarian (see the link to Krugman's post below)
http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/amartya-sens-justice.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bitcoin II
http://kinhtetaichinh.blogspot.com/2018/01/bitcoin-ii.html
-
Tôi không phản đối việc tăng giá điện, miễn là nó được quyết định bởi cung cầu và thị trường điện có cạnh tranh. Nhưng phát biểu này của thố...
-
Đọc "Ái tình và Cam ranh" của 5Xu chợt nhớ đến quốc gia này ở châu Phi. Cho dù Cam Ranh có mở cửa cho tàu của TQ vào, Djubouti mới...
-
Dành cho các bạn sinh viên kinh tế: một khoá học econometrics ngắn về network models. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2014/...
My comment on Falkenblog:
ReplyDeleteLet's modify the story a bit: replace the flute with a bread, Anne be an innovator who if consumes the bread at time t would produce a technology to make 3 breads in t+1, Bob is disable who is unable to work, and Carla remains the one who made the original bread at t-1.
Utilitarian could make their case giving the bread to Anne at t. At t+2 if Carla comes up with a better technology, utilitarian may redistribute the social wealth again to maximize the future social utility regardless of who make breads at t+1.
I think both utilitarian and libertarian arguments are about efficiency rather than justice. The difference is in which way you look at the process of creation of wealth, forward or backward. Only the question whether to redistribute wealth to disadvantaged members like Bob who never makes any contribution to wealth creation is a justice issue. Think in Rawls' veil of ignorance principle, if Carla could become disable at time t+1 a redistribution principle applied at all t sharing wealth to people like Bob is a desirable trade off of efficiency for justice.